Thought a visualization of data we can make initial assumptions as to the connection between instructional technology budgetary spending, and student growth and achievement in standardized testing assessment practices. Analysis across grade levels and content areas in relation to funding and BYOT implementation, illustrates probable links to effective practices through instruction. While I have specific numbers for and names of schools used for the data collection, I am leaving much of that specific information out due to conflict of interest with my career. It is my hope to show in this project that "successful technology use is driven by teachers rather than outside experts." (
Reflection
This project certainly challenges my thinking due to to views and experiences with standardized testing results and what is real about technology spending with school districts across the nation. Standardized testing in my opinion does not reflect the overall goal of instructional technology in terms of differentiation, student driven academic goals, and self fulfilled meaningful learning experiences. In addition I am well aware of the inconsistent spending related to technology resources as well as professional learning and development of teacher driven skills. Schools with additional budgets and spending rights will have access to resources and professional learning that other schools will not have. This is not reflected in a district budget. Grants, educational foundations, Title 1 funding, etc., contribute to additional funding and opportunities that districts do not control or report. Regardless of funding options, we need "to prepare for a future that we know with be dramatically different." (France, Pumerantz, & Caplan, 1999) Considering my views on this element of the project, I am looking for insight into the overall picture which is illustrated from a CRCT report from schools in a second year implementation of BYOT. I certainly recommend using visual literacy to reflect upon educational initiatives over time. The clarity of these representations lead to a deeper understanding of the overall picture, in my opinion.
Frances, C., Pumerantz, R., & Caplan, J. (1999). Planning for instructional technology: What you thought you knew could lead you astray. Change: The Magazine of Higher Learning, 31(4), 24-33.
Project Description
Thought a visualization of data we can make initial assumptions as to the connection between instructional technology budgetary spending, and student growth and achievement in standardized testing assessment practices. Analysis across grade levels and content areas in relation to funding and BYOT implementation, illustrates probable links to effective practices through instruction. While I have specific numbers for and names of schools used for the data collection, I am leaving much of that specific information out due to conflict of interest with my career. It is my hope to show in this project that "successful technology use is driven by teachers rather than outside experts." (Reflection
This project certainly challenges my thinking due to to views and experiences with standardized testing results and what is real about technology spending with school districts across the nation. Standardized testing in my opinion does not reflect the overall goal of instructional technology in terms of differentiation, student driven academic goals, and self fulfilled meaningful learning experiences. In addition I am well aware of the inconsistent spending related to technology resources as well as professional learning and development of teacher driven skills. Schools with additional budgets and spending rights will have access to resources and professional learning that other schools will not have. This is not reflected in a district budget. Grants, educational foundations, Title 1 funding, etc., contribute to additional funding and opportunities that districts do not control or report. Regardless of funding options, we need "to prepare for a future that we know with be dramatically different." (France, Pumerantz, & Caplan, 1999) Considering my views on this element of the project, I am looking for insight into the overall picture which is illustrated from a CRCT report from schools in a second year implementation of BYOT. I certainly recommend using visual literacy to reflect upon educational initiatives over time. The clarity of these representations lead to a deeper understanding of the overall picture, in my opinion.References
(n.d.). Retrieved from __https://eboard.eboardsolutions.com/StrategicPlan/PlanDetail.aspx?S=4067&PID=2477__
Anderson, R. E., & Dexter, S. L. (2000). School technology leadership: Incidence and impact.
Georgia Department of Education. (n.d.). Retrieved from http://www.gadoe.org/Curriculum-Instruction-and-Assessment/Assessment/Pages/CRCT-Statewide-Scores.aspx
Frances, C., Pumerantz, R., & Caplan, J. (1999). Planning for instructional technology: What you thought you knew could lead you astray. Change: The Magazine of Higher Learning, 31(4), 24-33.